Forum:SC1 or SC2 Gameplay Info First?
Classic Units Vs Modern Post-Broodwar Units Anyone else think we should have 2 separate pages for each SC unit? One for "Unit(Classic)" for original Starcraft & Broodwar units, as well as a separate "Unit(Modern)" pages for Starcraft2. Separate pages for people wanting to check the latest info on the new units and pages about the original units. Granted at the current time the articles for the newer units are small but pretty soon (seeing as how Blizzard is aiming for an 09 release, will steadily become available. We can add separate pages for strategies that tie-in to those units or have more strategies for each right on the unit page. For players searching "Zergling" for example would be presented with 2 links - "Zergling (Classic)" and "Zergling (Modern)". In each you get the background for each, classic might have the original stats, pictures, lore, counters, and gameplay strategies (ie. zergling rush) while the modern zergling page would have new strategies, tactics, new pictures, and post-broodwar lore.Instead of "Modern" we could also use the term "Post-Broodwar" incase of later storyline changes throughout the 3 upcoming games. I have no problems working on doing that. I also see nothing wrong really with "unit lore" as it gives the player a chance to get more into the SC world and provides a background story to every unit. If you wanted a website just for strategies and gameplay, then a wiki was the wrong choice. Cybermewtwo 15:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC) :Units that would have a long combined page (lore, SC1 gameplay, SC2 gameplay) are already split. The format is demonstrated by what we did with the terran marine. Other page splits may follow as necessity requires and/or time allows. - Meco (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry bout that but most of the pages havent been done yet which is why I was unaware. Although shouldnt there be a link at the top or that would take you to the SC2 unit instead of having for scroll all the way down? "For other uses, see Marine (StarCraft II)" or a sort of index page that lists both? Cybermewtwo 15:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC) :There is a link at the top in the orange box with the black border. - Meco (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Major fail on my part - My apologies. I saw the box but I thought that was still related to strategies with that same unit. Didn't notice the II in there linking it to the modern day counterpart. Cybermewtwo 15:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC) SC1 or SC2 Gameplay Info First? One thing I've been wondering about for a while is why, on unit pages, SC1 game information always precedes that of SC2? I think that most people who come to the wiki these days are looking for information on recent goings-on -- that is, SC2, not SC1 -- so having relevant information at the top, as opposed to the bottom, would be convenient. Moreover, it would also go a long way to prettying up some articles by showing off nicer/newer artworks. Food for thought. :) Purewasted 08:53, April 29, 2010 (UTC) It's a fair point...but still, I'd much rather progress through a unit chronologically. It's not that tedious to simply scroll down to SCII information. Additionally, having SC2 after SC1 allows us to point out differences in SC2 from SC1 traits-can't really do that if SC1 info comes after. Besides, some units are divided into lore and their game incarnations (personally I think only the queen justifies a divide, but I'm in a minority here).--Hawki 08:57, April 29, 2010 (UTC) Putting SC1 rather than SC2 info up first is up to debate. We might as well hash it out here. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 12:50, April 29, 2010 (UTC) I guess, but it's definetly a change that I'd oppose, for the following reasons: *Logistical nightmare. *It hardly takes any time to scroll down to SCII information. Don't automatically assume that browsers are lazy. *History traditionally starts in the past and ends in the present. If you want to start in the present and work back to the past, that removes any sense of development and removes any sense of change of SCII units from their SCI counterparts, which is a difference I think should be mentioned where appropriate.--Hawki 13:00, April 29, 2010 (UTC) Playing Devil's Advocate for a minute here. On the other hand, take the "historical progression" approach to its logical extreme: it's 2030, we're playing StarCraft 5, and at the very top of a page we've got a bunch of images that are still dated to 1990 graphics and look -- by 2030 standards -- even more atrocious than they do today. Let's go on to say that by 2030 we've had 5 Siege Tank units. Does a user have to scroll through all of them to find the data most relevant to him? Chances are, the first articles he sees are going to be the least relevant to his current interests. Moreover, by placing things in a strictly chronological order, we lose all sense of priority. The information in SC2 is, by virtue of being more recent, more important to us than information in SC1. There is no such concept as a backwards retcon, for that very reason. ;) If we simply place everything in sequential order, we're saying it's all equally important, and that is simply not true -- of lore, or visuals, or gameplay, or anything. This is especially true in some specific cases. For instance, the chat we're having on SCL regarding CMC suits. SC2 and Heaven's Devils both suggest (in some ways explicitly) that the Marine suits in SC1 never really existed -- not looking the way we thought they looked, anyway. They always looked like they do now. So now not only is the information there outdated, apparently it's also completely erroneous, too. The "progression" from SC1's art to SC2's is, in the case of the Marine, really no different than the progression from SC1 beta to SC1 retail. But we don't put images of SC1 Beta Marines at the top of Marine articles, do we? Marines might have been intended to look like that at some point, but it turns out they don't -- and that's true of both the Beta, and, now, SC1's designs. Now I'm definitely not saying history isn't important, but if the above is true, is it still a good idea to implicitly suggest, through "historical progression," that all these designs are equally significant to the SC universe? Purewasted 14:15, April 29, 2010 (UTC) I doubt we'll ever get to SC5 personally-all indications seem to be that Legacy of the Void will be the last installment in the series. Still, to the subject in hand: The way I see it, if we're to place the most chronologically recent image (balancing with quality of course-take the mutalisk for example) is that either we seperate all unit articles between lore and gameplay or the SC1 unit box is moved down to the gameplay section, leaving the top of the page free for the most recent image. Out of the two, I'm more partial to the second option. As for the CMC suits...well, I'm guessing HD is explicit. Problem is, Frontline still establishes a dichotomy and there's the new suit traits that seem really out of place for traits explicitly labeled to the CMC-300. It's an issue that will have to be dealt with, but I have to ask the question as to what the hell the art department was thinking when an in-universe explanation would have sufficed. :(--Hawki 14:20, April 29, 2010 (UTC) Another thing to consider is that many of the artistic differences are given in-universe explanations-battlecruiser classes, the Arclite to the Crucio, etc. And given that the old CMC style still appears in SCII concept art, I still think some kind of in-universe contrast exists.--Hawki 14:55, April 29, 2010 (UTC) For many units (e.g. battlecruisers, dark templar, defilers, ghosts, high templar, infested terrans, marines, queens, reavers, siege tanks, and zealots), there are separate pages for the SC1 and SC2 versions of the unit. Perhaps separate pages are a good idea, or perhaps units with the same name should have a single page with all information for both games on it. It might be good to have a consistent policy on that. Defilers and reavers for SC2 no longer exist, yet the defiler and reaver pages for the SC1 game units are still separate from the main defiler and reaver pages, for one thing, so this is a point in favor of keeping both SC1 and SC2 versions on a single page (the 2 defiler pages should probably be combined now, as well as the 2 reaver pages). On the other hand, having separate pages for the SC1 and SC2 versions of things would render this SC1 or SC2 gameplay first issue a moot point, and the pages would be half as long and only about something in either SC1 or SC2 but not both. However, I am in favor of having SC1 first if they are kept on the same page, because it's the game that came out first, and that's chronological order. All pages about units, buildings, abilities, etc. with sections on StarCraft II ought to have the StarCraft II sections called "StarCraft II" without exception, so that the link template works and just for consistency's sake. I have already fixed this last problem I mentioned in all the places I found it. --The Overmind 11:00, May 2, 2010 (UTC) I think you've really highlighted the point of standards, how some units have been given special treatment and others hasn't. Anyway, I agree with you that SC1 should come first and that most, if not all units/buildings should have a SCII section. As for dividing units...well, all in all, of the ones you've mentioned, I think only the queen really justifies having seperate pages, because it's extremely different in both lore and game terms. Apart from that, the only real differences are in gameplay and often minor ones at that, with units filling the same niches.--Hawki 11:59, May 2, 2010 (UTC) Maybe we should make this a front-page poll? It'd be our first. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 12:25, June 5, 2010 (UTC) :Were people advocating similar splits for buildings? PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 21:33, June 12, 2010 (UTC) I think splitting should only be done when a gameplay section becomes large. This can be done for buildings too, although I suspect that won't happen very often since their possibilities are more limited. As for whether which gameplay section should precede which in combined articles, I'm ambivalent so long as it is applied to all articles. If the criteria in favour of SC2 on top is because it is most relevant, than that would mean the Ghost sections should come last as they are the least relevant. - Meco (talk, ) 19:32, June 20, 2010 (UTC) As I said earlier I think SC1 gameplay info should be before SC2 gameplay info if they are on the same page since that's chronological order. Also, defilers and reavers have a problem discussed in another forum topic with each of them having a SC1 unit page and a lore page, but no SC2 unit page since they aren't in SC2, so I am voting in favor of combining pages mainly because there should only be one defiler page and only one reaver page, and there is no reason to also have Defiler (StarCraft) and Reaver (StarCraft). As for other units that have already had their pages split into separate ones, that is fine, they can be kept in separate pages for each game they are in, but the defiler and reaver pages definitely need to be merged. Lore articles are for units that exist in multiple games, not units that are only in one game. But units that actually exist in both games can be split into separate pages if you want; my vote is just on defilers and reavers being merged. Like if a unit is a campaign-only unit in StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty not available for multiplayer, I think having one page is enough, but units that anyone can make in multiplayer games ought to have their own SC2 pages separate from their SC1 pages, along with lore pages as well. I am definitely sure the defiler and reaver articles need to be merged back again. So anyway my vote is "merge/keep", although only for certain units and not others, so it's a little complicated. --The Overmind 14:49, June 22, 2010 (UTC) :A stop-gap furthering Purewasted's concerns. Right now we have SC1 unitboxes at the very top of the pages, and that doesn't really make sense. I'm going to move those down to the unit section, and put a good-looking (and hopefully recent) lore image at the top of each page. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 23:36, June 25, 2010 (UTC) ::I edited the SCV page to fit this standard. Tell me what you think. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 23:40, June 25, 2010 (UTC) It's a bit jarring, but objectively, I think it's the best way to go, having the most up to date image presented first, but also keeping gameplay info chronological. I think this may warrant some lore-based templates though, such as vehicle, starship and zerg breed ones. Stuff like race of origin, role, maybe parameters such as height and weight. Up to discussion I guess.--Hawki 00:48, June 26, 2010 (UTC) The zergling and hydralisk articles are so large, I believe those two should be split. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 01:52, June 26, 2010 (UTC) Votes Split: *Cybermewtwo *Purewasted Merge/Keep: *Hawki *The Overmind Others (clarify) *Meco *PsiSeveredHead